Democrat run Detroit drops under 700,000 (was once nearly 2 million)

Detroit is the end result of democrat run societies. There's 50+ years of  "progressive" democrat rule (with one moderate in Dave Bing) from Jerome P. Cavanagh to Ed McNamara protege Mike Duggan. Notice that the riots started under Cavanagh's watch. White democrats FUBARed the city as much as anyone else, despite their denials. (

From the Detroit News:

Detroit— The 60-year exodus from Detroit is continuing but may be slowing, as the city’s population has fallen under 700,000 residents, according to estimates released today by the U.S. Census Bureau.

The government pegs the city’s population at 688,701 as of summer 2013, down nearly 10,000 residents from 2012. The rate of decline, though, has slowed to an average of 7,500 per year since 2010 compared with 24,000 per year in the 2000s.

Suburban counties — Oakland, Macomb and Livingston — gained about 1 percent in population, while Wayne County lost about 1 percent, the records show. Its decline is fueled largely by Detroit, which had 1.9 million residents in 1950 and is now smaller than it was at any point since before 1920.

I don't consider Livingston (or Lapeer, St Clair, or Monroe) a suburban Detroit county (which I limit to Tri-County), but that's another discussion.

The census data don’t indicate where Detroit residents are going, but show that some outer suburbs are booming six years after the real-estate meltdown.

“Sprawl is back,” said Kurt Metzger, director emeritus of Data Driven Detroit who reviewed the numbers.

For all the talk about "back to the city," it just doesn't happen with most people. People live in an area for jobs, schools, crime, and costs. Detroit CAN come back if the voters there choose to have it come back. If they continue to support democrats and the same people who screwed up the city, it will not come back. If Detroit refugees vote for the same types of people that fubared Detroit, which I see happening in parts of Oakland County, then it will travel down the same road in Detroit. It's not geography or race that causes these problems. It's bad public officials that run these municipalities into the ground, along with the voters who put them there.

Here in Livingston County, it's our responsibility not to go down the road that Detroit has gone, and that some other communities are following.

Detroit gets an emergency financial manager

This is what happens with 50 years of Democrat rule. Insolvency. If there is one thing that we all need to remember, it is this. 50 years of Republican governance - Livingston County. 50 years of Democrat reigns of error - Wayne County.  Balanced Budgets, low taxes, high property values, low crime, less corruption and one of the better economies of SE Michigan - Livingston County. Insolvency, high taxes, low property values (mostly), high crime, major corruption, and an economic mess - Wayne County. Unassuming local officials who do their jobs property - Livingston County. Machine politics and corruption - Ed McNamara, Jennifer Granholm, Mike "Great white hope" Duggan, Monica Conyers, Kwame Kilpatrick, Bob Ficano - Wayne County. Republicans - Livingston County. Democrats - Wayne County.

Personally, I'd rather see Chapter 9 bankruptcy than an EFM, combined with a cutoff of all state funds outside of the musts until they get their act together. There's no doubt that Detroit needs an EFM from a competence standpoint. Is it a cure all? Not at all.

The question is this. When the EFM leaves Detroit, what's going to happen? The same old song and dance. Detroit is 95-5% Democrat. The same thing is going to happen when the outsiders leave unless things change quickly. Insanity is the same thing done over and over again and expecting better results. Until the progressives are neutered there, the city is going to keep mirroring the football team there in results. What else would you expect from a city that is 95% democrat? 

Dave Bing, a relatively sane democrat, is probably the best it's going to get out of there. At least he and Archer aren't crooks. The rest are going to be Kwames or maybe a Great White Hope for the liberal progressives in Mike Duggan - both of whom (along with Granholm and Ficano) who came from the same Ed McNamara machine. Duggan's tied in (at least indirectly) with the Metro Cars no big contracts. Even liberal Jack Lessenberry was suspicious of Duggan way back when he ran for prosecutor. The only difference between a Mike Duggan and Kwame Kilpatrick is color. It'd be the Rostenkowski or Blagojevich as compared to Jesse Jackson Jr. What's the difference? As far as I'm concerned, it's the same old song and dance.

From the Free Press

Rosendall said in court that Synagro officials "were very uncomfortable with dealing with someone that close to the mayor." He said the solution was to give 45% of the consulting fee to Jackson and 55% to the girlfriend, who would then give Kilpatrick his cut.
Rosendall said the money wouldn't all be paid at once.
The deal included $25,000 monthly fees, and milestone payments of roughly $100,000 for things like getting permits approved or construction started.
"Did Bernard Kilpatrick do anything to earn that money?" Bullotta asked.
"Not that I know of," Rosendall said.
Rosendall said he had heard rumors about that being the way things got done in Detroit.
"There was a pay-to-play thing going on in the city of Detroit," Rosendall testified. "You had to hire people or pay people to do (work)."
The government also played one audio recording in which Kilpatrick talked about carving out "borderline illegal" deals when he worked with Ed McNamara and Mike Duggan, who is now exploring running for mayor of Detroit. He didn't elaborate.

Bernard Kilpatrick is Kwame's dad and worked for McNamara.

After all this - can Detroit come back? Yes, it can. It won't be from outsiders either if it chooses to do so. EFM's can't save cities. They can at best mitigate some damage. The question is will Detroiters choose to come back. It's a choice made by Detroiters who live in the city, not suburban white people who left and still think they should run the city. Jobs, low crime, decent schools, lower costs. Those are what makes cities livable - not lofts and the "cool cities" tripe spewed by progressives. If Detroit wants to come back, they can't have the same old song and dance and 95-5% "progressive" democrat voting with the same city council, same policies, and same school boards elected time and time again. The other thing is this. Downtown won't save Detroit. Downtown and Wayne State aren't the big problem. The problem are the neighborhoods. Homes shouldn't be broken into. Lighting should work. Violent criminals should be taken off the streets. Property Taxes can't be 62 mills. Until those are fixed, Detroit will be what it is - a broken city with a relatively "safe zone" around downtown and Wayne State for suburban white people to come and spend their money and go home.

Detroit can choose to come back, but will it?  They'll have to take some pages from our playbook here in Livingston County to do so. I hope it'll happen, but I'll have to believe it to see it.

Democrats gloat about their free pass in Howell Township (and party leadership thoughts)

The democrats tripled their representation in Livingston County partisan offices, and it is in one of the least likely places - Howell Township. They gloated about it in the paper. They gloated about it because Republicans allowed it to happen

I wrote about this back in May titled Embarassing black eye. We were caught looking.

Caught looking. It's a baseball term I use. In politics, I use it when someone gets lackadaisical, and gets defeated because the other side outworks them. The person isn't paying attention to the tactics of the other team or the situation and watches strike three go past them, getting a bad out. "Caught napping" is another term often used. If you hear me say that we were "caught looking," this is what I'm referring to, right here.

I'm going to be hearing about this post from some unhappy people, most of whom I consider friends, but the facts speak for themselves here. I hope those people are unhappy reading this, and I'm unhappy about writing this. It's a swift kick in our collective asses, and it is needed. The first two words in our local Livingston County Republican Party/Committee are "Livingston County." Those are the two most important words in the name. It is where we live. 

...

The biggest fubar was in Howell Township. Four trustee candidates have filed. Two in each party. In addition, we KNEW there would be openings there as Carolyn Henry is running for prosecutor, and gave us plenty of notice. We knew democrats would be running. They filed, long before Tuesday. In a 57% McCain and 65% Bush municipality, we're giving two seats to the dems. They are tripling their representation in this county, before we even have the general election.

We couldn't get people to run in those areas? One of their residents is running against an incumbent at a higher office, but not the two democrats taking over his township. I wasn't too happy about that.

I'm still mad about that. LCGOP leadership (for the record, I'm not on LCGOP EC, but 8th District) should not have allowed that to happen. Because this did happen, we lost these two seats before any contest began. In Howell Township, John Doe could win as an R with just a name on the ballot.

The Argus has this in today's paper

The Howell Township Board of Trustees has Democratic Party members for the first time in more than five decades — a sign the party has a growing influence in Livingston County, said Judy Daubenmier, county Democratic Party chairwoman.
On Nov. 6, township voters elected Democrats Lois Kanniainen and Mike Tipton as two of the board's four trustees.
The Democrats' victories were inevitable — four people ran for the four trustee seats — but were a step toward dispelling "some of the mystique" of county Democrats, Daubenmier said.

Again, this happened because our local party allowed it to happen. 1958. To give an idea how long ago that is, it is the year after the Detroit Lions were NFL Champions. This is basic organization 101.

There's more.

"I think it will give us some people that we can highlight and talk about, and people can see what they do," Daubenmier said.
"We're just really, really pleased that Lois and Mike stepped forward. They were willing to step forward, and it's a township that faces some difficult problems right now, and they're ready to lead," she added.

Judy Daubenmier has every reason to gloat. While our local party dropped the ball, the dems took advantage of the opening. They won 1420 to 0 and 1327 to 0. It was a shutout. Now we have to hope they don't disguise their leftism enough to become viable candidates for higher office.

This can not happen again. Party leadership will be chosen soon. While there is lots of talk about who is the "constitutionalist" conservative or is the "true" conservative, the first two words in Livingston County Republican Party are "Livingston County."  We need to make sure our local races are not neglected and that the big picture is seen. There are three people running for chair. One's the current party secretary and was a liaison to most factions and has been active locally since 06 (was active in Washtenaw previously), one's a relative newcomer (active since 09) likely backed by the outgoing chair, and I am the other. I may win. I may lose. I can see it going either way. I personally get along with the other two running, and am running on the issues. I've worked well with the current secretary as a district member, and IMO the Howell Township candidate recruitment troubles was not on him. The newcomer has been active, along with the secretary and myself at the groundwork events needed this last campaign.

Believe it or not, some factions are trying to right-flank me. That's hard to believe for some, but it's not that surprising these days. That's partly because I've been involved in the party for 11 years and don't talk about how I'm the true conservative all the time like I did in the old days. Talk is cheap. All the readers here know where I stand and that's not going to change. I'm hardly a liberal. I was on the Mike Pence for President bandwagon since 2006 with my fiscal views. Still am. I can't hide my views if I tried.

While I, along with the rest of the people running, consider ourselves to be a "true conservative", the job of Chair and EC members isn't to be the "true conservative." That in and of itself doesn't qualify any of us three for anything at all. Our job is to be able to get Republicans of all views including (not excluding) the "true conservatives" elected in the general election at all levels of government. That is how to advance the conservative movement. Conservatives don't magically win elections. It takes organization, campaign experience, data reading, hard work, planning, execution, tactics, time management, volunteer's time management, good staffing, messaging (watch the mouth), and money. That's just what we can control. It also takes what we can't control. Votes. Organization, execution, tactics, and time management was lacking last election (and pre-election). That needs to change.

As I just said, our job is to be able to get Republicans of all views including (not excluding) the "true conservatives" elected in the general election at all levels of government. That includes those who aren't necessarily my favorite. The job is for Republican leadership to have a strong enough showing in Livingston County to win statewide. We can not neglect our nominees, whether they be from the tea party wing, establishment win, moderate wing, old style conservative wing, or libertarian wing. I don't like it when our nominees are abandoned and hung out to dry. That includes conservatives like Tim Walberg and Jack Hoogendyk, center-right candidates like Pete Hoekstra and Mike Bouchard, moderates like John McCain (he DID win the primary in 08) and all points in-between. I can promise that I won't use the chair's power for buddy politics or smashing views which may be critical of some of the people within the party.  I will smash coronation (or takeover) attempts (whether I am Chair or not). We have primaries for a reason to vet candidates and to nominate the best candidate on a number of areas (ideology, competence, campaign ability, etc). I understand the critics. I've been a critic myself at times long before the rise of the Tea Party, and much of that is found in my greatest hits here.

However, what has been neglected the most at the county level in the push for ideology and flash is our meat and potatoes organizational abilities. I don't want to see 1420 and 1327 to 0 again. Proper time management and organization would have prevented that. The August Primary filing deadline isn't a secret. It's in May every two years. Township elections are every four years. We needed to be ready. That wouldn't happen on my watch. While I can't control what a candidate would do, we'd be prepared for abandonment (ie McCain, Rove's mouth until he changed his mind) as well with our own infrastructure if I have any say in the matter.

Livingston County has an advantage that a lot of other counties do not have. While the famous billboards with the "Keep Livingston Republican" slogan due to "Low taxes, highest bond rating" is well known, this is also a safe community to live with good people. That's not an accident. While there are some township exceptions, most of the county is reasonably well run at that level, and very well run at the county level. Our party doesn't brag enough about that to the newcomers here. You want Wayne County to be spread here, vote dem. You want Livingston County to still be well run, support us. It's Republicans which got Livingston County to this point. That's not an accident.  That doesn't just happen. As the talk radio saying goes, conservatism works when it is tried. However, repeating that doesn't work. Pointing how how and where it does with real world examples does work.

It's up to precinct delegates and county elected officials to elect the EC. Whether I am deemed worthy to make a comeback to county after my stint at district committee isn't up to me. I'm running the different scenarios and can see a path to win and a path to narrowly lose. The county elected officials all know me and at least one of the other people running. I know many, but not all of the precinct delegates. I do hope that precinct delegates reading this think carefully about the people selected and consider past performance, organizational ability, tactics, planning, competence, and execution, as well as the obvious of ideology. Our goals aren't to get our buddies the important titles, but to pick the best Republican leadership so Livingston County can sweep the county, and also carry the rest of the state past the finish line. I don't need the title for glory sake or to be the supposed big fish (ain't that big) in a small pond. I have a good party title already with district that I'm probably assured of keeping. A lot of the big names already know me. After 11 1/2 years, that tends to happen. I'm also well aware that those who believe their own press clipping tend to fall from grace rather quickly. I've seen it happen more times than I can count and was on the receiving end of that in another group in 02. The guy who was the big power that went against us is now practically a nobody as well these days. We aren't that big. The smart ones understand that. 

Party leadership is an important decision, and one with two years of ramifications. We need to make 18 wise decisions for executive committee and then the executive committee needs to make wise decisions for party officers including chair. The decisions we need to decide isn't who is the most 'true conservative' but who can help get the Republicans - including true conservatives - elected in a difficult general election campaign statewide (or 8th District if Mike runs for Senate). Livingston County will need to carry extra weight due to some of the other counties.

It's our party. Here's our chance. We need to make sure locally that what happened in Howell Township doesn't happen again. We need to make sure that Michigan is a swing state in statewide elections again and do our part both locally, district wide, and statewide.

Glenn Anderson announces and MI-13 updates

Things just got real interesting. According to the Michigan Liberal website, term limited State Senator Glenn Anderson is announcing a congressional run. I've heard two potential districts. The 11th district (MI-11) and the 13th District (MI-13) I think it will likely be the 13th district, and will assume that in this post. Anderson lived in the 11th until redistricting placed most of his state senate district in the 13th.

Anderson currently represents the old 6th district in the state senate. The old 6th was Garden City, Livonia, Redford, and Westland. All of it used to be in the 11th. Redistricting kept Livonia in the 11th and placed Garden City, Redford, and Westland in the 13th. Anderson lost Livonia, but won the rest of the district. That's why I think he won't run in the new 11th against Thad McCotter (or Mike Kowall).

The 13th is currently represented by Hansen Clarke, who is running in the 14th. John Conyers in the 14th, is running in the 13th. It is a Voting Rights Act black majority district. However, it's not 60% black anymore, but about 55-56% I believe. It's still designed to elect a black representative, but much of the white portion of this district is democrat (more so than the 14th), including locally. Conyers won't have to deal with Oakland County now, but he's got some areas which don't care for him personally (or more so his wife Monica) - and they will vote in primaries. In addition, Anderson is the only candidate running from outside the city of Detroit (or Highland Park). Bert Johnson and Shanelle Jackson (the only woman running in the primary) are also running.

Anderson knows how to win tough races. He defeated an incumbent in 2006 and defeated a former state rep in 2010 in a race that some thought would be closer.

Conyers has two Achilles heels. One is Monica Conyers. The other is Suburbs. He lost to a "sacrificial lamb" Republican in Trenton, Southgate, Riverview, Grosse Ile, Gibralter, and Allen Park. He also came close to losing in Melvindale and underperformed in East Dearborn (the Muslim part). Only Grosse Ile usually goes Republican. For comparison, Hansen Clarke won Wyandotte, Lincoln Park, and even competitive Grosse Pointe Park. This was after Carolyn Kilpatrick lost 2-1 in GP Park and Wyandotte in the Obama year of 2008. She did win Lincoln Park. Clarke had some goodwill because he was the guy who beat Kwame Kilpatrick's mom. This isn't about race at all. Clarke is minority (Black and Bangladeshi) as is Kilpatrick, and Clarke in a GOP year ran better than Kilpatrick in a democrat year. Conyers has an unpopular wife who was on city council. Carolyn Kilpatrick has an unpopular son as mayor.

Most of those areas aren't in the district, but Westland, Redford, Dearborn Heights, Garden City, and Wayne are all areas similar to Downriver in their attitudes. Mostly white, more moderate socially, pro-labor, blue collar and working class. Romulus and Inkster are also in the district and are heavily black - but represented by neither Conyers nor Anderson. Westland and Redford are increasingly black, but Anderson already represents those areas, and Westland is his home.

Those areas all lean democrat, sometimes 60% plus. They are locally democrat as well. They will likely be voting in the primary. They most likely won't be voting for Conyers, and at least three of those areas are very familiar with Anderson. If it is still a four way race, I think he has a decent good shot to win (as does Jackson). If Johnson or especially Jackson (the only woman running) drops out, it will be much a tougher road for Anderson.

The district about has 705,000 people. Anderson's portion of the district has 156,784. The portion Detroit reps do not represent total about 275,000. That includes Inkster, the Dearborn Heights portion, Romulus, and Wayne. Ecorse, River Rouge (Monica Conyers is originally from there), and Melvindale are represented currently by Detroit Reps, as is Highland Park (obviously). Anderson will have to win big in the non-Detroit portion to have a shot. I also think Jackson (being the only woman running, and being much younger than Conyers or Anderson) has a shot at winning some of those areas, particularly Inkster and Romulus. Those two areas were near Anderson's district, but not part of it. On the other hand, one united factor in that area besides the UAW is the airport. Anderson's district doesn't have the airport, but is right near it, and I'm sure Westland has a lot of airport commuters.

The bulk of this district is Detroit, mostly the West Side, which is the home base of Conyers. That doesn't mean they will all vote for him. Monica Conyers really damaged that last name. Primaries are also common in Detroit. Conyers isn't the only Detroiter running. Bert Johnson (Highland Park, but grew up in Detroit and represents part of it) and Shanelle Jackson are also running. Anderson has his work cut out for him here. He'll get a few votes by default, but he's been in Westland for 33 years. The split will help him with whites, but it will hurt him with blacks who refuse to vote for Mr. Monica Conyers (but would help with those open to alternative, but not to non-city residents).

I'd like to have seen a precinct area of the Kwame Kilpatrick vs Freeman Hendrix areas. I think this area is where this primary will be decided. The Hendrix areas are mostly likely to vote for a challenger to Conyers, especially with Monica being in the news so often.

Bert Johnson currently lives in Highland Park which is in the new district. Most of his senate district is in the 14th, although his home is in the 13th. Geography hurts him some, but he'll get some votes.

Old Redford/Rosedale Park is Shanelle Jackson's state rep district. I have family that used to live there years ago. Last time I was down near there (Old Redford) was back in the Hendrix/Kilpatrick race. Most of the signs I saw were for Hendrix. I still have family in the district just south of there. Warrendale/Parkland. That area was dominated by city workers, and there's still a number of them still there. They wern't Kwame fans, and I don't think they care for Conyers either with Monica on that city council. Jackson has an opening there with proximity, and so does Anderson with some of the whites still there.

While downtown isn't in this district, most of Southwest Detroit, including a lot of the Mexican areas. They could be a major swing vote in this race, and I have no idea who they would support.

Conyers has his toughest election in years, and could very well be defeated, either by Jackson or Anderson. It'll be interesting to see how this race goes in August of 2012.

Bullshit Tea Party (BSTP) leader pleads no contest to perjury and forgery

Remember the Bullshit Tea Party (BSTP) from 2010? Now as Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright says, "The chickens are coming home to roost."

From the Free Press

Michael McGuinness, former chairman of the Oakland County Democratic Party, pleaded no contest last week to charges associated with a fake Tea Party scheme hatched for the 2010 elections.

McGuinness, 27, was facing a trial this week on perjury and forgery charges linked to putting unwitting people on the ballot as candidates of the tea party.

No contest for sentencing purposes means the same thing as a guilty plea. Jason Bauer, his political director is up on trial December 8th.

These jagoffs need to be taught a lesson that vote fraud is no longer tolerated in Michigan.

I've first caught wind of the BSTP back in July of 2010. Here's some background on this:

BSTP releases list of candidates. Several are Democrats

Michigan Capitol Confidential - Democratic Party Political Director Linked to Mysterious Tea Party Political Party

Right Michigan - Breaking - Fake Tea Party candidate not running

More from Right Michigan

Even more from Right Michigan

To the Livingston County Democrats - those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Democrat county commissioner candidates push for WALLY Train to Nowhere

Here we go again. Democrats want to bring this to the county:

From Judy Daubenmier at "Living Blue"

And they urged the county commisison to at least study the proposed WALLY commuter rail line between Howell and Ann Arbor -- a project supported by chambers of commerce in Brighton and Howell, as well as by the city of Howell and Hamburg Township.

Good ole WALLY trains. It's like Eminem or the band Green Day and that awful voice. When you think it goes away, it comes back and gets worse.

We had studies on WALLY. The county commission, rightly so, said no tax money goes to WALLY. There's been several estimates on WALLY costs. The latest from AA Chronicle is 9 million for trains, 4.3 million for station fundings, 7.1 million annual funding. They expect 1300 passengers a day. 1300 passengers a day? That covers jacksquat.

In 2009, they asked for 32 million in startup. Their 07 budget said the budget was 5 million a year.

According to the startup budget given in 2007, which was increased, I said you needed 1814 commuters a day, including weekends to break even.

"4.9 million will cover what? You have salaries, security, normal wear and tear, energy costs, and runs. 2.9 for startup? Between the trains, parking lot construction, training, etc? I'm skeptical. Even using that number, will you get a profit on that. 15,000 people (estimated number of commuters from Livingston to Ann Arbor at $225 a month (rumored price) will get you 3.37 Million a month - that's if EVERY commuter in the county uses it and pays that amount. I'm guessing most of the commuters to Ann Arbor are in Brighton, Hartland, and Hamburg. Hamburg has 20,000 people. I'll guess that 4000 of them commute to Ann Arbor, with 1000 in Howell (city has 10000 people) commuting. That'll give 5000 of the areas covered from the train. 5000 * 225 - 1.125 million a month - if all commute on the train. Anyone familiar with Hamburg knows how spread out it is. Part of it is "Brighton", most of it is "Pinckney", part of it is "Lakeland", and part of it is "Whitmore Lake". I'll be shocked if most of the commuters are going to drive a few miles to wait for the train. This area is spread out. Howell is denser, but has much less population - and it too is spread out a bit in its eastern and northern most areas near 59 - and forget about getting much help from Genoa (even with the Chilson stop - that area is flat out country), Marion, Howell Twp, and Oceola.


In order to cover the estimated operation costs from regular commuters - you need 408,334 a month - 1814 commuters a day (including weekends, so weekend warriors are very important). That leaves 2.9 million in debt from startup costs which can be paid for over a few years with good profit.

Can you get 15-20% of county's Ann Arbor commuters to use the train EVERY DAY - despite cutting out Brighton and Hartland from the route? If you can, then I'll cook up some fried crow.""

This train does not cover Brighton, Hartland, Fenton/Tyrone, South Lyon, or Pinckney. The railroad tracks in Brighton are from the C&O railroad, not the Ann Arbor Railroad. The only area covered with ANY density is Howell. The rest is all spread out. They spin by calling Chilson Rd "Brighton", which is a stretch to say the least. That area is flat out country. Whitmore Lake is spread out outside of a small part. Hamburg is very spread out. All these people who consider the train have to drive to the station.

From where I live in Green Oak, I can get to Ann Arbor in 20 minutes, in rush hour, avoiding US-23. I don't commute there anymore, but that's the route I took for years if 23 was a problem.

If you want to enact more mass transit in Livingston County, busses are more efficient and cheaper. That's too low brow for the leftist yuppies though. This is what they think constitutes "Smart leadership and Smart Growth." The democrats criticize the county airport (and may have a case there), but push for higher costing WALLY?

County Parks. Dane Morris talks about that, but we have plenty of parks here. Brighton Rec area. Island Lake. Kensington. Pinckney Rec area. Do we need more county spending on that? Money that we don't have right now.

Smart Growth. Kelly Raskausas (My old district) and Barry McBride (my current district) keep mentioning those and other similar buzzwords without detailing them in their speeches (at Living blue). For those who don't know, "Smart Growth" is a new urbanist theory that comes from the coasts, especially the left coast (Portland). It pushes for central city development, compact neighborhoods, mixed use housing (apartments, not detached homes), car unfriendliness, and lots of restrictions on what we can do with our land.

Be aware of what the buzzwords really mean.

Yet More on the BS tea party. (BSTP)

Besides the ongoing research done on my site here, many others are exposing the fake tea party, the BSTP, for what it is.

Kudos to Right Michigan, Classical Values, Michigan Capitol Confidential, and theblogprof, as well as the late Chet Zarko for first catching this.

Blogprof - Confirmed: Michigan 'Tea Party' A Democrat Hoax To Trick Voters At Ballot Box

Classical Values - Fake "Tea Party" Democratic operatives fail my smell test!

Michigan Capitol Confidential - Democratic Party Political Director Linked to Mysterious Tea Party Political Party

Along with tons of stuff at Right Michigan

Know the tricks. Know the enemy. Neutralize them.

Michigan Capitol Chronicle finds another smoking gun on the BS "Tea Party" (BSTP)

Yesterday, I posted some smoking guns on the BSTP. There's plenty more.

Here's the latest:

Democratic Party Political Director Linked to Mysterious Tea Party Political Party
A tea party organizer says he has found the smoking gun that links the Democratic Party to the controversial "Tea Party" that is running candidates and seeking official ballot status in Michigan.

A "Jason Bauer" is listed on recent federal election documents and state campaign donation documents as the "political director" of the Oakland County Democratic Party. A "Jason H. Bauer" signed the affidavits as the notary on nine of the mysterious Tea Party Political candidates' paperwork turned in to the state of Michigan.

A "Jason H. Bauer" has registered twice to run for office in Oakland County, once as a Democrat in May of this year. Both times, the Auburn Hills home address given by "Jason H. Bauer" is the same as the "Jason Bauer" who is identified as the Oakland County Democratic Party political director on the state and federal campaign documents.

The "Jason H. Bauer" signature on the Oakland County document also appears substantially similar to the notary signatures on the Tea Party political party candidate filings revealed this week.

Now we have a Jason Bauer to go with these four clowns:

Mark Steffek. Steffek is the chair and treasurer of the BSTP. Steffek's political donations include David Bonior for Governor and the UAW's PAC. The UAW leadership and Bonior? Far leftist democrats. Check the donation reports, which are all online at the Secretary of State's website

Thomas Murdock. He and his wife Joyce donated $100 to Andy Dillon. Joyce also supports anti-hunting committees. No real tea party supporter would donate to Dillon or anti-hunters, but the BSTP does. Source - Secretary of State

Frantt Whitehall. Frantt donated to Garnet Lewis, Sharon Tillman, Mike Huckleberry. Robert Whitehall of the same address gave to Clinton County Democrats. Source - Secretary of State.

David Polzin. He donated to Bart Stupak. No real tea party supporter would donate to Stupak, but the BSTP is another story. If that's not good enough. David Polzin of Menominee gave $10 to Grand Traverse Democrats, and $55 to Granholm, and $50 to Michigan House Democrats fund.

There's more on Bauer:

On the Oakland County Democratic Party website, Jason Bauer was listed as the contact and a member of the Host Committee for the party for Mike McGuinness, the chairman of the party.

The Detroit Democratic Party Meetup Group has a Jason Bauer page. On that page, Jason Bauer introduces himself as a member of the Oakland County Democratic Party and as a candidate for the Auburn Hills City Council. When Bauer filed paperwork to run for the Auburn Hills City Council, he identified himself as Jason H. Bauer.

On the Federal Elections Commission website, Congressman Gary Peters itemized his donations. A May 4, 2009, donation of $200 lists Jason Bauer as the contributor and lists his employer as the Oakland County Democratic Party and his occupation as "Political Director."

Don't be fooled by the BSTP.

The Bullshit "Tea Party" (BSTP) releases their candidate list. Several are open democrats

The actual tea party movement isn't a real political party. It's a loose-knit group of conservative and libertarian activists who are irate at the spending, taxes, TARP, and other big government leftism that has gone on for the past six years.

However, the left is trying to create a bullshit "tea party" to try and siphon 2-3% of the vote to keep power with the democrats. How do we know it's the left? I'll give you four reasons later.

Here's their list of candidates.

State Senate
District 7: Shelley Niles
District 12: John Young
District 13: Thomas Murdock
District 15: Heather Sartorius
District 26: Andrew Nicholls
District 36: Frantt Whitehall

State House
District 1: Jameson Canto
District 26: Susan Quashat
District 43: Matthew Quinn
District 51: William Guethner
District 64: Sara Summerfelt
District 65: Christopher Dickinson
District 107: Tony Matthews
District 108: David Polzin

Notice where they are. Those are almost all competitive or swing districts. They aren't based in Detroit (except 1), Flint, or Southfield, nor Livingston County.

State Senate:
District 7 - Bruce Patterson's seat. Downriver west to Belleville and north to Northville. Close district for years.
District 12 - Mike Bishop's district. Democrat Pontiac and Republican Northern Oakland. Leans Republican, but nothing with Pontiac is safe.
District 13 - John Pappageorge Central Oakland. One of the three closest districts in the state in 06
District 15 - West Oakland. One of the few safe or almost safe districts. It still has West Bloomfield though.
District 26 - Part of Genesee and Oakland Counties. Treading Republican, but not there yet.
District 36 - Midland and the Lake Huron Coast. Swing district.

State House:
District 1 - Grosse Pointes, Harper Woods and part of Detroit. Swings.
District 26 - Leans Democrat. Royal Oak and Madison Heights.
District 43 - Slightly Republican. Waterford, part of West Bloomfield (not the most democrat part)
District 51 - Southern Genesee County - Slightly Republican, but Pat Lockwood held this seat in the 90's.
Districts 64 and 65 - Jackson County, swings.
District 107 - Eastern UP, Northern Lower Penninsula - Swings
District 108 - Central/Southern UP - Swings.

Why aren't they running in ANY non-competitive districts? Simple. Because they are leftists who want the democrats to win. We know this for four reasons.

Reason 1 - Mark Steffek. Steffek is the chair and treasurer of the Bullshit Tea Party (hereafter reffered to as BSTP. Steffek's political donations include David Bonior for Governor and the UAW's PAC. The UAW leadership and Bonior? Far leftist democrats. Check the donation reports, which are all online at the Secretary of State's website

Reason 2 - Thomas Murdock. He and his wife Joyce donated $100 to Andy Dillon. Joyce also supports anti-hunting committees. No real tea party supporter would donate to Dillon, but the BSTP does. Source - Secretary of State

Reason 3 - Frantt Whitehall. Frantt donated to Garnet Lewis, Sharon Tillman, Mike Huckleberry. Robert Whitehall of the same address gave to Clinton County Democrats. Source - Secretary of State.

Reason 4 - David Polzin. He donated to Bart Stupak. No real tea party supporter would donate to Stupak, but the BSTP is another story. f that's not good enough. David Polzin of Menominee gave $10 to Grand Traverse Democrats, and $55 to Granholm, and $50 to Michigan House Democrats fund.

Granholm? Caucus? That's what the BSTP supports.

We as conservatives need to make sure that the BSTP is exposed, is not a real tea party, and is just another arm of the democrats. A vote for the BSTP is a vote for more of the same from the left which is running this state into the ground.

Right Michigan is also doing research on this.

Campaign Finance Statements almost due - heads up

It's almost campaign finance season. The due date for candidates in the August Primary to turn in the reports is July 23rd. This is for ALL candidates appearing on the ballot. That includes those unopposed in the primary. That includes those unopposed in the general election. That includes local as well as state level candidates.

I've on several occasions why one needs a good treasurer when running a campaign. Today we have another example in the papers close to home. This was an honest mistake, and the fines were waved by county. However, it still brings bad press, and former leftist AP reporter and County Dems chair Judy Daubenmier is going to make sure of it. From the Argus:

he Livingston County Democrats said incumbent Republican County Commissioner Carol Griffith should have been fined "thousands" of dollars for not filing campaign-spending reports for the 2008 election cycle.

Griffith — who ran unchallenged that year and said this week the document error was an honest mistake — didn't seek waivers to filing the documents, which are normally granted for candidates who spend less than $1,000, as Griffith did, said County Clerk Margaret Dunleavy.

County Democratic Party Chairwoman Judy Daubenmier issued a press release Tuesday claiming Griffith received special treatment because Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land is also a Republican.

Uhhh, Judy, did you have that illegal 50/50 fundraiser during the same period as Carol's campaign? You know what they say about people in glass houses. If you want to play gotcha politics on campaign finance issues with my county, you better have a clean house, because we will find your campaign finance skeletons.

However, all of us need to take this as a learning experience. Carol admits her mistakes.

Griffith said she didn't exceed the $1,000 spending mark in 2008 and didn't need to because she was running unopposed for Board of Commissioners District 7, which covers all of the city of Brighton and part of Genoa Township.
She learned of the document error by the county Democrats, and said she has since corrected what she called an "honest mistake."

"It has been corrected. I am in compliance," Griffith said.

"I am moving on from this," she added.

I agree that it was an honest mistake, and one that is easy to make. Carol was a first time candidate.  I suspect Carol thought she was originally going to run a competitive campaign, and was surprised to find at the 2008 filing deadline that she was unopposed both in the primary and general elections. She probably either A, forgot to amend her S&O to check the waiver wire or B, thought she didn't have to file if she didn't spend money or didn't have an opponent. It doesn't matter in the eyes of the campaign finance laws. They look at things differently.

She was lucky. This could have been another Edmund Senkowski if it wasn't caught when it was. That would be bad news, embarrassing for all of us, and cost her a lot of money. She still made the papers, and that's something that should be avoided if possible for things like this.

We all need to take this as a learning experience. One thing that our local party needs to do, especially in 2010 for the township offices, is to teach our candidates what they need to know about campaign finance procedures. It is extremely easy to screw up. State rep candidates do that all the time. I have a side business that handles these matters so there are no screw ups and candidates have less worries. If you don't want to use my business, then make sure whoever handles these matters is good. Else, you run a higher risk of bad press, fines, and having your campaign put on defense.

July 23rd, folks. Remember that date.

Democrat hedge fund Goldman Sachs charged with civil fraud

While they are innocent till proven liable by a preponderance of the evidence, my guard's been up on Goldman Sachs for years. They have an insane amount of power in Washington. One of the biggest culprits in the economy has been the behavior of Goldman Sachs and their leaders.

From the Wall Street Journal

NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Credit markets became jittery again Friday as a U.S. regulator filed civil fraud charges against storied Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs (GS).

The Securities and Exchange Commission said Goldman had failed to disclose to investors vital information about a synthetic collateralized debt obligation, or CDO, based on subprime mortgage-backed securities. In particular, the agency was interested in the role a major hedge played in selecting the assets included in the CDO, which the hedge fund then bet against.

"Credit markets are seeing a sizeable impact from the Goldman news," said Bill Larkin, a portfolio manager at Cabot Money Management, in Salem, Mass. "The question is, has the SEC discovered what may have been a common practice across the industry? Is this the tip of the iceberg?"

Investors will rush to "safety," Larkin added, noting that "this is impacting all markets across the globe."

The cost of protecting Goldman's debt rose sharply before backtracking a little by late afternoon. The bank's credit default swaps or CDS were quoted at 124 basis points after Thursday's close of 90 basis points, according to administrator Markit. The level had widened to 136 basis points earlier in the day.

Investors tried to figure out whether other firms or other structured finance products will be affected. They are concerned that the SEC's action may create a domino effect affecting other firms and other structured finance products. There's also the worry that this regulatory move may rattle the recovery and bring uncertainty back to the market.

This is major news, and will be even bigger if the SEC gets a judgment against Goldman Sachs (This is a civil, not criminal case). Goldman Sachs was one of the big winners in the bailout mess of 2008, with a lot of help from their buddies like Hank Paulson and Chris Dodd. To give an idea of the kind of power Goldman Sachs has:

Clinton's treasurer Bob Rubin - Goldman Sachs
Bush's treasurer Hank Paulson - Goldman Sachs
Disgraced former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine - Goldman Sachs
Chief of Staff to Obama's treasurer Tim Geihtner, Mark Patterson - Goldman Sachs

Goldman Sachs is also overwhelmingly (although not exclusively - Paulson) democrat, unless your the auto industry hating Richard Shelby.

Lloyd Blankfein - CEO and Chairman - Donated to Richard Shelby (one of my least favorite Republicans), ACTBLUE, Mike McMahon, Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton, Jon Corzine, John Kerry, Tom Daschle, Tom Carper, Dick Gephardt, Chuck Schumer, and Arlen Specter.

David Viniar - Chief Financial Officer - Donated to Chris Dodd, who along with Barney Frank, is one of the two most responsible for the financial mess. He also supported Tom Daschle, Chris Van Hollen, Erskine Bowles, Bob Menendez, and Barack Obama.

Gary Cohn - Chief Operating Officer - Donated to Richard Shelby, Lee Fisher (D-running for Voinovich's seat), Kirsten Gillibrand, ActBlue, Scott Murphy, Mike McMahon, Steny Hoyer, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, Max Baucus, Jack Reed, John Edwards, DNC, Ben Cardin, Sheldon Whitehouse, Max Baucus, Bill Nelson, Bob Menendez, Harold Ford, Jon Corzine, and Tom Daschle. In short, the biggest bunch of F'ups on the face of the earth - the US Senate.

In 2009, Forbes magazine gave Lloyd Blankfein a fitting award. The number one position in CEO Hall of Shame.

And last but not least: the divine Lloyd Blankfein (No. 1), chairman and chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs ( GS - news - people ). Despite bearing scant resemblance to, say, Mother Theresa, the Pope or the Dalai Lama, Blankfein told the Sunday Times of London in November that he was just a banker doing "God's work." He later said he meant it as a joke, but he certainly pays himself as if he were accomplishing something greater than human: In 2007 he made $73 million, according to Forbes, and only $25 million in 2008, as the economy tanked, but look for a recovery in his compensation this year as Goldman Sachs has recovered far ahead of the economy as a whole. In honor of the modesty of his pronouncement, we lift him to the celestial height of No. 1 on our list of CEO outrages of 2009.

Goldman Sachs has a long history of controversies.

From Spiegel:

Goldman Sachs helped the Greek government to mask the true extent of its deficit with the help of a derivatives deal that legally circumvented the EU Maastricht deficit rules. At some point the so-called cross currency swaps will mature, and swell the country's already bloated deficit.
...
Greece's debt managers agreed a huge deal with the savvy bankers of US investment bank Goldman Sachs at the start of 2002. The deal involved so-called cross-currency swaps in which government debt issued in dollars and yen was swapped for euro debt for a certain period -- to be exchanged back into the original currencies at a later date.

Fictional Exchange Rates

Such transactions are part of normal government refinancing. Europe's governments obtain funds from investors around the world by issuing bonds in yen, dollar or Swiss francs. But they need euros to pay their daily bills. Years later the bonds are repaid in the original foreign denominations.

But in the Greek case the US bankers devised a special kind of swap with fictional exchange rates. That enabled Greece to receive a far higher sum than the actual euro market value of 10 billion dollars or yen. In that way Goldman Sachs secretly arranged additional credit of up to $1 billion for the Greeks.

This credit disguised as a swap didn't show up in the Greek debt statistics. Eurostat's reporting rules don't comprehensively record transactions involving financial derivatives. "The Maastricht rules can be circumvented quite legally through swaps," says a German derivatives dealer.

When the subprime market gave banks a beating, Goldman Sachs on the other hand. The Guardian

Goldman's annual profits, announced on Tuesday, were up 22% to $11.6bn.

The bank's 30,000 staff will share a compensation pool of $20.1bn - amounting to $600,000 each if it was divided up equally (which, obviously, it won't be). Even certain Goldman secretaries, according to one pay expert, can expect to scoop $200,000 apiece - more than the salary of New York state's governor, Eliot Spitzer.

That's against a backdrop in which other firms are slashing jobs. Bear Stearns has crashed to the first quarterly loss in its 84-year history and has cut 9% of its workforce. Citigroup, having lost between $8bn and $11bn, is shopping for investors to boost its flagging capital adequacy ratio.

Gee, it helps to have friends in high places, like Paulson, Rubin, and Patterson. In fact, since AIG was "too big to fail" thanks to bipartisan screwups, Goldman Sachs was the winner. From Politico

the documents AIG released account for some of the more than $180 billion in aid that AIG has received, and they detailed for the first time which financial firms are benefitting from the federal handout.

In all, AIG disclosed payments of $105.3 billion between September and December 2008. And some of the biggest recipients were European banks. Societe Generale, based in France, was the top foreign recipient at $11.9 billion, Deutsche Bank of Germany got $11.8 billion and Barclays, based in England, was paid $8.5 billion.

Here in the U.S., Goldman Sachs received $12.9 billion. Edward Liddy, the government-installed CEO of AIG, sat on the board of directors of Goldman Sachs until he joined AIG.

He took the position while President George W. Bush's Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson — who until joining the administration had served as Goldman's chairman and CEO — arranged the insurance company's initial government bailout.

Paulson again. Thanks a lot Dubya for that appointment.

This will be an interesting trial or settlement. If it goes to trial, the discovery process may be more interesting than the trial itself. One thing is for certain, regardless of the outcome, Goldman Sachs needs to be kept far from the government.

The big government health care reform (deform) bill passes - comply or spend five years in prison

Forget tea parties. I want a torches and pitchforks party. I'll bring the beer. We'll need lots of it with this piece of trash passed. This needs to be repealed immediately after Mr. Obama signs this - unless the courts strike this, or parts of this down. Here's the bill, all 2310 pages of it. It's a long read, nearly 1000 pages longer than War and Peace.

It was a party line vote in Michigan. All the dems voted for this. All the Republicans voted against this. It's no secret all the crap that from this senate bill which was moved to the house. There's still procedural battles and this will probably end up in the courts. Supposedly, Bart Stupak had an agreement with Obama about an executive order on abortion language. I'll believe it when I see it.

How bad is this bill?  I've decided to take another look at this 2310 page monstrosity. First rule of thumb, if a bill is 2310 pages, most reps have not read it, and it's bad news. War and Peace is 1440 pages. Atlas Shrugged is 1200 pages. This bill is nearly twice as big, and on much bigger pages, and the same small print. There's plenty of small print there. Page 119

SEC. 222. PREMIUMS AND FINANCING.

(a) Establishment of Premiums-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall establish geographically-adjusted premium rates for the public health insurance option in a manner--

(A) that complies with the premium rules established by the Commissioner under section 113 for Exchange-participating health benefit plans; and

(B) at a level sufficient to fully finance the costs of--

(i) health benefits provided by the public health insurance option; and

(ii) administrative costs related to operating the public health insurance option.

(2) CONTINGENCY MARGIN- In establishing premium rates under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall include an appropriate amount for a contingency margin.

(b) Account-

(1) ESTABLISHMENT- There is established in the Treasury of the United States an Account for the receipts and disbursements attributable to the operation of the public health insurance option, including the start-up funding under paragraph (2). Section 1854(g) of the Social Security Act shall apply to receipts described in the previous sentence in the same manner as such section applies to payments or premiums described in such section.

(2) START-UP FUNDING-

(A) IN GENERAL- In order to provide for the establishment of the public health insurance option there is hereby appropriated to the Secretary, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $2,000,000,000. In order to provide for initial claims reserves before the collection of premiums, there is hereby appropriated to the Secretary, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as necessary to cover 90 days worth of claims reserves based on projected enrollment.

(B) AMORTIZATION OF START-UP FUNDING- The Secretary shall provide for the repayment of the startup funding provided under subparagraph (A) to the Treasury in an amortized manner over the 10-year period beginning with Y1.

(C) LIMITATION ON FUNDING- Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing any additional appropriations to the Account, other than such amounts as are otherwise provided with respect to other Exchange-participating health benefits plans.

This is Government here.Administrative costs are quadrupled. This is the home of the  $400 hammer and $600 toilet seat.

And page 126:

SEC. 225. PROVIDER PARTICIPATION.

(a) In General- The Secretary shall establish conditions of participation for health care providers under the public health insurance option.

(b) Licensure or Certification- The Secretary shall not allow a health care provider to participate in the public health insurance option unless such provider is appropriately licensed, certified, or otherwise permitted to practice under State law.

(c) Payment Terms for Providers-

(1) PHYSICIANS- The Secretary shall provide for the annual participation of physicians under the public health insurance option, for which payment may be made for services furnished during the year, in one of 2 classes:

(A) PREFERRED PHYSICIANS- Those physicians who agree to accept the payment rate established under section 223 (without regard to cost-sharing) as the payment in full.

(B) PARTICIPATING, NON-PREFERRED PHYSICIANS- Those physicians who agree not to impose charges (in relation to the payment rate described in section 223 for such physicians) that exceed the ratio permitted under section 1848(g)(2)(C) of the Social Security Act.

(2) OTHER PROVIDERS- The Secretary shall provide for the participation (on an annual or other basis specified by the Secretary) of health care providers (other than physicians) under the public health insurance option under which payment shall only be available if the provider agrees to accept the payment rate established under section 223 (without regard to cost-sharing) as the payment in full.

(d) Exclusion of Certain Providers- The Secretary shall exclude from participation under the public health insurance option a health care provider that is excluded from participation in a Federal health care program (as defined in section 1128B(f) of the Social Security Act).

Conditions to participate. Here's a question. How many doctors are going to say screw this and not participate?


Page 149:

SEC. 312. EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS EMPLOYEE AND DEPENDENT COVERAGE.

(a) In General- An employer meets the requirements of this section with respect to an employee if the following requirements are met:

(1) OFFERING OF COVERAGE- The employer offers the coverage described in section 311(1) either through an Exchange-participating health benefits plan or other than through such a plan.

(2) EMPLOYER REQUIRED CONTRIBUTION- The employer timely pays to the issuer of such coverage an amount not less than the employer required contribution specified in subsection (b) for such coverage.

(3) PROVISION OF INFORMATION- The employer provides the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury, as applicable, with such information as the Commissioner may require to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this section.

(4) AUTOENROLLMENT OF EMPLOYEES- The employer provides for autoenrollment of the employee in accordance with subsection (c).

(b) Reduction of Employee Premiums Through Minimum Employer Contribution-

(1) FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES- The minimum employer contribution described in this subsection for coverage of a full-time employee (and, if any, the employee's spouse and qualifying children (as defined in section 152(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) under a qualified health benefits plan (or current employment-based health plan) is equal to--

(A) in case of individual coverage, not less than 72.5 percent of the applicable premium (as defined in section 4980B(f)(4) of such Code, subject to paragraph (2)) of the lowest cost plan offered by the employer that is a qualified health benefits plan (or is such current employment-based health plan); and

(B) in the case of family coverage which includes coverage of such spouse and children, not less 65 percent of such applicable premium of such lowest cost plan.

(2) APPLICABLE PREMIUM FOR EXCHANGE COVERAGE- In this subtitle, the amount of the applicable premium of the lowest cost plan with respect to coverage of an employee under an Exchange-participating health benefits plan is the reference premium amount under section 243(c) for individual coverage (or, if elected, family coverage) for the premium rating area in which the individual or family resides.

(3) MINIMUM EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION FOR EMPLOYEES OTHER THAN FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES- In the case of coverage for an employee who is not a full-time employee, the amount of the minimum employer contribution under this subsection shall be a proportion (as determined in accordance with rules of the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury, as applicable) of the minimum employer contribution under this subsection with respect to a full-time employee that reflects the proportion of--

(A) the average weekly hours of employment of the employee by the employer, to

(B) the minimum weekly hours specified by the Commissioner for an employee to be a full-time employee.

(4) SALARY REDUCTIONS NOT TREATED AS EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS- For purposes of this section, any contribution on behalf of an employee with respect to which there is a corresponding reduction in the compensation of the employee shall not be treated as an amount paid by the employer.

(c) Automatic Enrollment for Employer Sponsored Health Benefits-

(1) IN GENERAL- The requirement of this subsection with respect to an employer and an employee is that the employer automatically enrolls such employee into the employment-based health benefits plan for individual coverage under the plan option with the lowest applicable employee premium.

(2) OPT-OUT- In no case may an employer automatically enroll an employee in a plan under paragraph (1) if such employee makes an affirmative election to opt out of such plan or to elect coverage under an employment-based health benefits plan offered by such employer. An employer shall provide an employee with a 30-day period to make such an affirmative election before the employer may automatically enroll the employee in such a plan.

(3) NOTICE REQUIREMENTS-

(A) IN GENERAL- Each employer described in paragraph (1) who automatically enrolls an employee into a plan as described in such paragraph shall provide the employees, within a reasonable period before the beginning of each plan year (or, in the case of new employees, within a reasonable period before the end of the enrollment period for such a new employee), written notice of the employees' rights and obligations relating to the automatic enrollment requirement under such paragraph. Such notice must be comprehensive and understood by the average employee to whom the automatic enrollment requirement applies.

(B) INCLUSION OF SPECIFIC INFORMATION- The written notice under subparagraph (A) must explain an employee's right to opt out of being automatically enrolled in a plan and in the case that more than one level of benefits or employee premium level is offered by the employer involved, the notice must explain which level of benefits and employee premium level the employee will be automatically enrolled in the absence of an affirmative election by the employee.

SEC. 313. EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE.

(a) In General- A contribution is made in accordance with this section with respect to an employee if such contribution is equal to an amount equal to 8 percent of the average wages paid by the employer during the period of enrollment (determined by taking into account all employees of the employer and in such manner as the Commissioner provides, including rules providing for the appropriate aggregation of related employers). Any such contribution--

(1) shall be paid to the Health Choices Commissioner for deposit into the Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund, and

(2) shall not be applied against the premium of the employee under the Exchange-participating health benefits plan in which the employee is enrolled.

Basically, we have an 8 percent payroll tax.

Page 143...

SEC. 301. INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY.

For an individual's responsibility to obtain acceptable coverage, see section 59B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by section 401 of this division).

And what does section 401 say? Page 167...

SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

`(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of--

`(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

`(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

It's a 2.5% of your income that is fined. This is a penalty. This is a penalty fine disguised as a tax and should be challenged. The penalty for not paying the fine/tax is a trip to prison. I wrote about it here in November of 2009. Sections 7201 and 7203. They are already law, part of the Internal Revenue Code.

7201 - Attempt to Evade or Defeat tax. Felony. $100,000 fine. 5 years in prison.

7203 - Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax. Misdemeanor. $25,000 fine. 1 year in prison.

There's also a surcharge. Page 197.

SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.

`(a) General Rule- In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to--

`(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,

`(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and

`(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.

I wonder how many sole proprietors, partnerships, and LLC's are going to be out of business with this. Those aren't corporations, but are a large number of businesses.

The Attorney General has more access. Eric Holder I don't want near medical records. I don't want John Ashcroft there either for that matter. Section 1651

SEC. 1651. ACCESS TO INFORMATION NECESSARY TO IDENTIFY FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE.

Section 1128G of the Social Security Act, as added by section 1631 and amended by sections 1632 and 1641, is further amended by adding at the end the following new subsection;

`(d) Access to Information Necessary To Identify Fraud, Waste, and Abuse- For purposes of law enforcement activity, and to the extent consistent with applicable disclosure, privacy, and security laws, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and the Privacy Act of 1974, and subject to any information systems security requirements enacted by law or otherwise required by the Secretary, the Attorney General shall have access, facilitation by the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, to claims and payment data relating to titles XVIII and XIX, in consultation with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services or the owner of such data.'.

I have to relook at the HIPPA laws, but things are in bills for a reason. My guard's up, and while I don't see a wolf yet, there's a potential one.

Here's a potential wolf.

SEC. 3121. NATIONAL PREVENTION AND WELLNESS STRATEGY.

`(a) In General- The Secretary shall submit to the Congress within one year after the date of the enactment of this section, and at least every 2 years thereafter, a national strategy that is designed to improve the Nation's health through evidence-based clinical and community prevention and wellness activities (in this section referred to as `prevention and wellness activities'), including core public health infrastructure improvement activities.

`(b) Contents- The strategy under subsection (a) shall include each of the following:

`(1) Identification of specific national goals and objectives in prevention and wellness activities that take into account appropriate public health measures and standards, including departmental measures and standards (including Healthy People and National Public Health Performance Standards).

`(2) Establishment of national priorities for prevention and wellness, taking into account unmet prevention and wellness needs.

`(3) Establishment of national priorities for research on prevention and wellness, taking into account unanswered research questions on prevention and wellness.

`(4) Identification of health disparities in prevention and wellness.

`(5) A plan for addressing and implementing paragraphs (1) through (4).

`(c) Consultation- In developing or revising the strategy under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with the following:

`(1) The heads of appropriate health agencies and offices in the Department, including the Office of the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service, the Office of Minority Health, and the Office on Women's Health.

`(2) As appropriate, the heads of other Federal departments and agencies whose programs have a significant impact upon health (as determined by the Secretary).

You see, government has a major stake now in health care. Tax money in spades is going towards that. In addition, my experience in Lansing showed me that one of the biggest big government statist lobbies in the business is the public health lobby. It's like out of the movie Demolition Man. Anything that is in their opinion, bad for you, must be outlawed or taxed. We see what's happening with tobacco right now. They pushed to go against firearms in the 1990's with lawsuits against firearms manufacturers. Gubernatorial candidate Virg Bernero pushed for a "pop tax" while in the state senate. (soda's for you on the East Coast, Cokes for you in the South). Granholm had a "meatout" day proclaimed last Saturday. While I'm not to worried about the "meatout" day, since it was just a mouth running, I am concerned about a "meat tax" in the future. The argument will be "50% of our payments are going towards Obesity. Tax carbs and meat to pay for it."

This ain't over with Obama's signature. It's just getting started. I'm not referring to the torches and pitchforks party we need in Washington to repeal this. I'm referring to big government trying to take control of every aspect of our lives.

And howabout this to get Mary Landrieu's vote.

CHAPTER 2--SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS FOR LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, AND ALABAMA

SEC. 321. PURPOSE.

Grants under this chapter shall be for the purpose of modernizing, renovating, repairing, or constructing public school facilities, including, where applicable, early learning facilities, based on the need for such improvements or construction, to ensure that public school facilities are safe, healthy, high-performing, and technologically up-to-date.

What the hell does that even have to do with health care?

There's plenty more that's bad there. All 2300+ pages of this. This isn't Fox News reporting. This isn't Rush Limbaugh reporting. I don't watch TV News or listen to talk radio. All of this is straight from the bill itself. Primary sources.

This needs to be repealed at best, and modified at worst. We can start with stopping the bleeding with getting rid of the democrats, and then firing Obama's sorry ass in 2012.

Republican comeback in the Northeast?

While the big story for 2009 was the takeover of the governor's mansion in New Jersey and Virginia, there's more good news for the GOP, and the disasters of 06 and 08.

2006 and 2008 was a disaster for the GOP. Republicans were wiped out in much of the country during those two election cycles with unpopular incumbents and struggling state and local parties. It was very tough in the Northeast and Midwest, for different reasons. In Ohio, you had Taft. Here in Michigan, it was the economy and "outsourcing" tag. Indiana had their own issues. Illinois is Obama's home state. Minnesota and Wisconsin have long held democrat leanings.

Michigan's State Senate District 19 is a bellwether district covering Calhoun and most of Jackson Counties. It voted for Granholm twice, Bush twice, and Obama.

I found this interesting National Review article by Jim Geraghty.. They looked at some of the recent results in suburban northeastern counties. Keep in mind that most of those are much more liberal than the two big suburban counties here (Oakland and Macomb).

Consider these six numbers: 62, 53, 54, 60, 60, 53.

Those numbers are the percentage of voters who supported Barack Obama last year in Westchester and Nassau Counties in New York, Bergen and Middlesex Counties in New Jersey, Fairfax County in Virginia, and Bucks County in Pennsylvania, respectively.

Now, here are the percentages of the vote that the top-of-the-ticket Democratic candidates got in each of those counties this year: 43, 48, 48, 44, 49, 45.

.........

But as the stack of 2009’s defeated Democrats piles up to include Westchester county executive Andrew Spano, Nassau county executive Tom Suozzi (probably), and state supreme court nominee Jack Panella in Pennsylvania, with a roughly proportional slide in the Democrats’ share of the vote, perhaps that party’s problems go well beyond the flaws of any individual candidate. Perhaps the suburbs of the northeast and Mid-Atlantic states are looking at the party and concluding, to adapt a recurring phrase from Obama’s days as a candidate, “This is not the Democratic party I knew.”

Westchester County? Ouch. Nassau? Ouch. Bucks County? Ouch. Those have recently been almost base counties at the top of the ticket. Westchester and Nassau are base counties across the board. Bucks will swing at times, but still has dem leanings.

After 2008, the declarations were blunt: Obama won 50 percent of suburban voters, the most by a Democrat since exit polling began in 1972. Democrats benefited from increased turnout among young voters and African-Americans, but the suburban shift from Kerry’s modest 47 percent was the real sign that they were winning over skeptics.

Kerry ran better than Gore in SOME suburbs (Fairfax, Bucks), and the same or worse than Gore in others (NYC suburbs, Oakland, Macomb). Obama ran better than both Gore and Kerry there. The article then mentions a poll with some of the shift since 08 election, as the memory of Bush goes back into the distance.

Page two of the article though really says something. Keep in mind, this is the Northeast, and not the Midwest here.

What is crystallizing in the northeast is voters’ incredulity that government at every level should be demanding more while delivering less at a time when people feel strapped and anxious about their futures. Almost all voters feel an ever-sharper pinch from the economic downturn, but they look at government, from their county seat to Washington, and find little or no sign of frugality or careful budgeting. There was also a time when conventional wisdom dictated that a pro-life Republican could not win a race in the northeast. Here are three candidates who suggest a lot of what we know about politics in the northeast is wrong:

The northeast is the most pro-government area of the country outside of California. It is the home of the rich white regressive (so called progressive) democrat. They have a lot of influence up that way. However, the swing voters are not buying what is sold anymore. I think there's several reasons for that, most importantly is Bush gone and Obama being just another politician not living to the hype.

Nassau County:

Republican challenger Ed Mangano is, as of this writing, not quite the next Nassau county executive. But he leads Tom Suozzi by 353 votes after a weekend of absentee and affidavit ballot counting, a process of counting that is expected to extend past the Thanksgiving holiday.

A county-executive race doesn’t dominate the headlines the way a presidential race does, but Suozzi entered this race the heavy favorite. In a county with more registered Democrats than Republicans, in a state where the GOP is supposed to be dead, an incumbent with a huge fundraising advantage ought to be able to win in his sleep. Perhaps that is a good way of describing what Suozzi attempted; he finished the race with perhaps $2 million in his campaign war chest unspent.

Nassau County is one of the two Long Island NY Counties. It's the more democrat of the two (Suffolk is the other). It went 53.84% for Obama, 52.25% for Kerry, 57.93% for Gore, 55.7% for Clinton 96, 46.4% for Clinton in 92.

Senate:
Hillary Clinton 06 - 60.47%
Charles Schumer 04 - 66.45%
Hillary Clinton 00 - 45.15% (Rick Lazio was from Long Island and won there, and Hillary carpetbagged)
Charles Schumer 98 - 46.5% (Al D'Amato was from Long Island and won there)

Governor:
Elliot Spitzer 06 - 64.88%

Nassau can sometimes be competitive though. The GOP has a congressional district still based in Nassau (Peter King), although the democrats have two districts there, one of which is winnable in a very good year. Part of the problems on Long Island were local scandals and a sweep of the county offices. If that's straightened out, there is a good chance for a comeback, at least of competitiveness.

Westchester County is much more democrat, and this was the real big upset. Westchester County is just north of the Bronx. Yonkers, White Plains, and Chappaqua, where the Clintons now live.

Rob Astorino is supposed to be the kind of Republican candidate who can’t win in the northeast anymore. He ran a fairly explicit campaign emphasizing fiscal conservatism, depicting the county’s management as wasteful, bureaucratic, inefficient, corrupt, and out of touch. He hammered his rival, telling voters that the incumbent county executive, Andy Spano, “raised your taxes almost 60 percent in the last seven years alone. Mr. Spano has ballooned the annual budget by $1 billion in the past 12 years, from $800 million to $1.8 billion per year. He spends more than 87 nations do, and you pay for it.” Intriguingly, while the pro-life Astorino didn’t put his faith or social views front and center, his conservative bona fides are impeccable: He is a radio host and program director for the Catholic Channel on Sirius Satellite Radio and hosts a Thursday-night program with Cardinal Edward Egan, the former archbishop of New York.

Astorino shellacked the three-term Democrat, 57 percent to 43 percent, in a county where Democrats have nearly a 2-to-1 advantage in voter registration. This is a county where Al Gore and John Kerry carried 58 percent of the vote, the county Bill and Hillary Clinton call home. It may be a bit self-serving, but Spano contends that his defeat reflects voters’ anger at Democrats at the state and national level. “It has nothing to do with me, as far as I’m concerned,” he told the New York Times. “They’re mad at Albany, and Washington.”

Westchester went 63.36% for Obama, 58.1% for Kerry, 58.63% for Gore, 56.9% for Clinton 96, and 48.6% for Clinton in 92.

Senate:
Hillary Clinton 06 - 66.50%
Charles Schumer 04 - 70.48%
Hillary Clinton 00 - 51.09%
Charles Schumer 98 - 54.5%

Governor:
Elliot Spitzer 06 - 69%

The two districts that cover Westchester are both democrat (one based, one partial), although one of them had been republican until 2006 due to other counties in that district. The other has been democrat since 1988. Westchester is about as Democrat as Ingham County (Lansing) here at home. It's not a county that republicans are supposed to win.

Pennsylvania is a more competitive state than New York, but has gone democrat recently, largely in part to the Philly Suburbs swinging left and having more population than the Pittsburgh suburbs which have swung independent. It was close in 04, but not in 02, 06 and 08 with Ed Rendell and the Philly area machine. Some good news came in a Supreme Court race. Supreme Court is a partisan race in Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania’s supreme court race pitting Republican Joan Orie Melvin against Democrat Jack Panella didn’t attract much national attention; while there was plenty of television advertising, it had two relatively unknown candidates, and the dominant issues of Washington were largely non-factors. The Democrat began with significant advantages: The state currently has 1.2 million more registered Democrats than Republicans, and Panella’s campaign raised $2.35 million, outdoing Melvin’s by almost 3-1, according to statistics compiled by an advocacy group, Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts.

Instead, Melvin won 53 percent to 46 percent, and won every suburban county around Philadelphia except Montgomery, which the Democrat carried by 1.4 percent. While the Democrat Panella garnered 70 percent of the vote in Philadelphia, traditionally the engine that drives Democratic wins in statewide races, the city had a miserable turnout of 12 percent.

That says something. Right now, the GOP only has one and 3/4 districts there. Jim Gerlach has a 50/50 district based in Chester County (and has part of Berks, Leigh, and Montgomery County where he loses). Charlie Dent has a Leigh valley based district that has a small part of Montgomery County. Joe Pitts has a heavy GOP leaning district with Lancaster County and part of Berks and Chester Counties.

2008:
Montgomery County - 60% Obama
Delaware County - 60% Obama
Bucks County - 53.74% Obama
Chester County - 54% Obama
Berks County - 53.76% Obama
Lancaster County - 55.21% McCain

2004:
Montgomery County - 55.57% Kerry
Delaware County - 57.15% Kerry
Bucks County - 51.10% Kerry
Chester County - 52% Bush
Berks County - 52.97% Bush
Lancaster County - 65.80% Bush

2000:
Montgomery County - 53.54% Gore
Delaware County - 54.36% Gore
Bucks County - 50.46% Gore
Chester County - 53.33% Bush
Berks County - 52.68% Bush
Lancaster County - 66.09% Bush

For President, the GOP last won Bucks in 1992, and last won Montgomery and Delaware Counties in 1988. The irony is that Dukakis almost won Pennsylvania in 1988 due to winning big in Western PA. Most of those counties for Dukakis went for McCain and GW Bush.

Geraghty makes his point here.

While these six counties have their differences, they are all classically suburban and among the wealthiest in the nation. There are 3,141 counties in the United States; ranked by median household income, Nassau ranks 12th highest nationally, Westchester ranks 47th, Bucks ranks 76th. Of the other counties mentioned earlier, Fairfax County ranks 2nd; Bergen ranks 28th, Middlesex ranks 68th. A wholesale rejection in the varied races of 2009 suggests that voters in these places are changing what they think when they hear the word “Democrat.” A year ago, it represented change from a wearying and disappointing Bush presidency; today it represents runaway spending, an arrogant dismissal of cries of over-taxation, and a fundamental disconnect from the daily life and problems of constituents.

After the 2008 election, Robert Lang, a demographer at Virginia Tech’s Metropolitan Institute in Alexandria, scoffed to the Washington Post, “The Obama campaign clearly understands where the battleground of this election was. Do [the Republicans] have the basic math skills to sit with an Excel spreadsheet and figure out where the growth is, or are they out of their minds?”

The good thing about 09 is that the talking heads who say the GOP is just a southern party can sit down and shut up. I said a few years back about the special elections where the GOP lost three in a row (either 05 or 07). One doesn't mean much. Two has my guard up. Losing three in row is a real problem.

Here's the opposite. Winning Virginia is important, especially Fairfax County which is a "non-Southern" part of Virginia at least in culture. That stopped the bleeding. Winning in New Jersey shows some offense. Winning the Philly burbs and some of the New York suburbs now is sending a message. Add the 19th district here at home for another swing district with a much different cultural area. Several distinct areas went GOP.

That doesn't mean that we're back. We're not. What it does mean is that the bleeding has largely been stopped for now. There's still a lot of work to be done with 2010. Most important in 2010 is the gubenatorial races and state legislatures. Why? They draw the boundaries in most states. While I don't care for the redistricting decision making process, it is what it is, and knowing the rules of the game is most important. Needless to say, for that reason alone, three republicans will automatically get my vote. The nominees for governor, state senate, and state rep.

The 09 elections were hopefully the beginning or a nationwide comeback against the radical leftist policies of Mr. Obama, Rahm Emmanuel, Mr. Reid, and Ms Pelosi.